ddmiller@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (Dave......) wrote: >In article , Jesper Werneburg says... >>gricker@iu.net (George Ricker) wrote: >>You have the humanistic idea that it is up to the human >>being to define one's own reality, and that may all be well >>and good but the real test is the _effect_ that one's >>believe has. >However, you must be careful to determine cause and effect, and to choose >the correct belief for each effect. What??? >>You may feel comfortable with having noone to whom you are >>accountable. You may say yourself, but that's the same as >>noone, but nature actually doesn't allow you to do that. >Of course we are bound by natural laws, although we can't break them even >if we wanted to. We can and we are doing it all the time. Therefore we are not happy. Like it's against nature's law to cause unnecessary trouble and pain to others in the course of satisfying oneself. If you do that, you'll have to suffer the reactions, and experience the same pain that you caused others. That's called karma and in a way you are right when you say that it cannot be broken, for you can never escape it's consequences. >>There are effects in nature which corresponds to your >>activities and it would be foolish not to investigate into >>that phenomena. >You mean like ecology? Uhm, that IS being investigated. Well, it's always a start. But there is much more than that. There is the effect on your consciousness by nature to investigate into. >> In science a lot of research is invested into determining >>the effect of matter on matter, and matter on mind, but when >>it comes to our activitities and the effect _they_ have on >>matter, a similar research is not being conducted, what to >>speak about the effect that consciousness has on matter, a >>subject regarding which the modern scientific establishment >>is still on the fumbling stage. >No, there are quite a few ecologists working on this stuff. I think you deliberately misunderstand. >>>I Guess it serves a purpose for those who are either unwilling or >unable to >>>say "I don't know" and live with the uncertainty created thereby. >> >>What purpose does it serve to be willing to be in ignorance >>and live one's whole life in doubt? Is that like, strength? >No, Jahnu. I don't believe he is saying that it is good it be in >ignorance, I believe he is saying that, whether we like it or not, we ARE >in ignorance, although we are learning more and more. So we are in ignorance. So how can we evaluate information and determine it's best implications from our ignorant platform? What's wrong in taking knowledge from God rather than speculating ourselves? You say that from ignorance comes knowledge, the Vedas state that from ignorance comes more ignorance. >>Is ignorance superior to knowledge? How can you say that >>noone knows ultimate reality? >Simple: no one knows ultimate reality. Is that something you know for an absolute fact? And in that case how do you know? >Some may think that they know ultimate reality, but that doesn't make it >so. But some may know and not think they know. Is that an option which should be a priori ruled out? In that case on what grounds? >>What is the basis of such an >>assumption? >The limitations of the human senses and the human mind. So what's wrong in taking a hint from God? >>>Having said all that, I also have to say that I don't feel any >lingering >>>"doubts" about my position. I don't believe in gods or religions as >>>anything other than human inventions. >> >>You mean you _ think_ that God is a human invention. Isn't >>it as plausible that it could be the other way around, like >>every religion in the world certifies? >It _could_ be the other way around, but we have no evidence to believe >that it is, so skeptics like myself should not believe such a thing. If you are truely skeptic why are you not skeptic about your own skepticism? >>> That I'm willing to leave the door>>>open to the possibility that I might have to revise that point of view >in >>>the future - based on new information - is not a weakness or a wavering >in >>>what I think. It's simply what - in my view at least - intellectual >>>honesty requires. >> >>Is it honest to manipulate and suck out nature and other >>living entities in our search for happiness? >You're changing the question. I'm talking ramifications here. What's wrong with that? >Human impact on nature is ultimately going to be negligable. There is >little that we could do, aside from blowing up the whole planet, that >would eliminate life. Nature has a hell of a lot better chance at >destroying us than we have of destroying nature. That's a fact. So why don't we learn from that and treat nature nicely? >Nature is perfectly capable of defending itself. Right. So if you are perfectly capable of defending yourself, does that mean that I can abuse you? >>We speak about human rights, but we are not willing to give >>other living entities those same rights. Is that honest? >Other living entities can look after themselves....competition is present >in nature. We should be careful with the environment, but because it is >in OUR interests, not the earth's. That's called selfishness. >Predation is a natural part of life. Other animals do it. We do it. It >is natural. Are slaughter houses natural? It may also be natural for a psycopath to cut off your head. It's also natural to have sex. I wonder why we use contraceptives then? They don't seem to grow on trees. -jahnu